Victorian Morality as the New Immorality
Lejla Bukvic
In The Importance of Being Earnest, Oscar Wilde makes a mockery of the Victorian institution of marriage and understanding of romance. By using Algernon to represent more modern views and Lady Bracknell to represent Victorian views, Wilde expresses concern that there are severe moral issues that arise when a man or a woman marries for trivial reasons, such as solely money and/or social status.
In Act I, Jack and Algernon are discussing marriage when Jack tells him the reason he has come to town is for pleasure, to propose to Gwendolen. Algernon responds to this in a sort of comical way: “I thought you had come up for pleasure?...I call that business” (71). Though this is meant to be a funny quip, it’s the first of many jabs Wilde aims at marriage. When looking at marriage from the Victorian perspective, it looks very much like a business transaction; a woman would have a dowry, and that dowry would be given to the man (of high status) who agreed to marry her. There was no love involved in the decision, nor was there much of a choice for the woman money and status were the only tools at either’s disposal. By comparing marriage to a business transaction, Wilde exposes the often tucked away immorality behind such a system: a person, or rather their status, is used as a bargaining chip to increase their chances of being married to the highest bidder. In this system, both men and women lose, for both have virtually no choice in who they marry because the system is setup to decide for them. Where the system fails or true love complicates the arrangement, the parents of the children have the authority to force this Victorian version of marriage upon them and decide for them, and where choice or responsibility is taken away, morality is lost.
Algernon also mentions love and its relationship (or lack of one) to proposals. He says, “It is very romantic to be in love. But there is nothing romantic about a definite proposal. Why, one may be accepted. One usually is, I believe. Then the excitement is all over. The very essence of romance is uncertainty” (72). This line, which is also meant to be a humorous little pun, has many layers of meaning hidden beneath the surface, layers which once again critique the Victorian understanding of marriage and/or romance. By comparing romance to uncertainty, Wilde is negating the preconceived notion that romance and the certainty of marriage go handinhand. During the Victorian era, things of romantic nature (sex, kissing, embracing, openly flirting) were designated specifically for one’s betrothed and seen as inappropriate outside of this agreement. The reader is made aware, however, that Algernon has carried out many of these behaviors before with his constant mention of “bunburying” or “Bunbury”, which Wilde would have included to signal to his audience the presence of a double lifeAlgernon’s promiscuous double lifethat was undoubtedly filled with uncertainty, and thus, romance. Being in favor of uncertainty in romance, then, also connects back with Algernon’s previous comparison to marriage as a business. Because he believes marriage to be a business, and accepted proposals would be considered a business agreement, both of his arguments seem perfectly logical. The same degree of certainty one would receive from this business transaction would not be romantic, for business transactions could hardly be considered as such. As for the immorality behind proposals, it is possible that Wilde was referring to the romanticization of claiming and being claimed. During the Victorian era, an engagement, and more particularly an engagement ring, was seen as a cause for celebration and congratulations. When looking at it from Algernon’s (or Wilde’s) perspective, this presumably wonderful occasion loses its charm.
A woman being proclaimed as engaged to be married and/or wearing an engagement ring in this sense, the Victorian sense, is analogous to a piece of property having its “for sale” sign taken down and a “sold” sign put in its place so others would know it, she, is “off the market”. Once again, the system is exposed for its immorality: it teaches men to view women as property or objects that they can claim, while teaching women to view themselves as such and simultaneously take joy in their objectification, and where there is dehumanization, there is no morality.
Though Algernon provides an outlet for Wilde’s more modern views of marriage and romance, the reader is also presented with Lady Bracknell, Algernon’s conservative aunt, who represents Victorian ideals. She frequently inserts her opinion on matters, but her comment on engagements specifically is important: “To speak frankly, I am not in favour of long engagements. They give people the opportunity of finding out each other's character before marriage, which I think is never advisable” (135). Once again, the audience is meant to view this as whimsical, for it is; however, there is more to her words than is immediately apparent. Wilde is using Lady Bracknell’s opinion to point out yet another immoral and commonly held belief about Victorian marriage and romance: love is not what marriage is about. The first part of her line is reminiscent of the idea that a business transaction is a quick one, for if one does not take the deal, another one will soon land on the table, which goes along with Algernon’s (Wilde’s) understanding of Victorian marriage as a business as well. The second part of her line, her objection to giving men and women “the opportunity of finding out each other’s character before marriage” is also reminiscent of the Victorian notion that getting to know one another (dating, flirting, romance in general, etc.) is not necessary in order for an engagement to take place, and thus, neither is love. This argument in particular, the argument that spending one’s life with another person is not something that requires getting to know them and love them, is one of the least moral of all the Victorian arguments and beliefs, if not the absolute least. This argument not only validates Algernon’s (Wilde’s) understanding of Victorian marriage and romance as a dehumanizing, objectifying, business system based solely on trivialities, it reduces the assumingly proud, just, and respected way of Victorian lifea life without love, stunted emotions, and rigid societal rulesto what it really is: arrogant, empty, and intolerant of differences, all traits which Lady Bracknell possesses and thus personifies as the Victorian voice of the play. If people and emotions (love, empathy, understanding) are valued significantly less than trivialities like status, money, material objects, or bigoted conventionalities like those the Victorianera peoples held, these values will lead to a society where freedom of choice is restricted, responsibility of one’s actions is eliminated, and dehumanization becomes an everyday part of life. It will, undoubtedly, be an immoral society.
There is the question of why, then, Wilde would make it so Algernon becomes engaged to Cecily if he (as well as Algernon) seems so opposed to marriage. It is important to note that their engagement is and their marriage will be quite different from a Victorian one. They partake in flirting, kissing, and embracing before they are married, they love each other, and their choice to marry isn’t based on societal rules, but rather their desire to be married. In the end, Wilde makes it clear that it is not marriage itself that he has problems with, but the trivial, societal constraints that it comes with; in the end, he simply wants people to love for love’s sake.
Work Cited
Wilde, Oscar . The Importance of Being Earnest. Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview, 2010. Print.
In Act I, Jack and Algernon are discussing marriage when Jack tells him the reason he has come to town is for pleasure, to propose to Gwendolen. Algernon responds to this in a sort of comical way: “I thought you had come up for pleasure?...I call that business” (71). Though this is meant to be a funny quip, it’s the first of many jabs Wilde aims at marriage. When looking at marriage from the Victorian perspective, it looks very much like a business transaction; a woman would have a dowry, and that dowry would be given to the man (of high status) who agreed to marry her. There was no love involved in the decision, nor was there much of a choice for the woman money and status were the only tools at either’s disposal. By comparing marriage to a business transaction, Wilde exposes the often tucked away immorality behind such a system: a person, or rather their status, is used as a bargaining chip to increase their chances of being married to the highest bidder. In this system, both men and women lose, for both have virtually no choice in who they marry because the system is setup to decide for them. Where the system fails or true love complicates the arrangement, the parents of the children have the authority to force this Victorian version of marriage upon them and decide for them, and where choice or responsibility is taken away, morality is lost.
Algernon also mentions love and its relationship (or lack of one) to proposals. He says, “It is very romantic to be in love. But there is nothing romantic about a definite proposal. Why, one may be accepted. One usually is, I believe. Then the excitement is all over. The very essence of romance is uncertainty” (72). This line, which is also meant to be a humorous little pun, has many layers of meaning hidden beneath the surface, layers which once again critique the Victorian understanding of marriage and/or romance. By comparing romance to uncertainty, Wilde is negating the preconceived notion that romance and the certainty of marriage go handinhand. During the Victorian era, things of romantic nature (sex, kissing, embracing, openly flirting) were designated specifically for one’s betrothed and seen as inappropriate outside of this agreement. The reader is made aware, however, that Algernon has carried out many of these behaviors before with his constant mention of “bunburying” or “Bunbury”, which Wilde would have included to signal to his audience the presence of a double lifeAlgernon’s promiscuous double lifethat was undoubtedly filled with uncertainty, and thus, romance. Being in favor of uncertainty in romance, then, also connects back with Algernon’s previous comparison to marriage as a business. Because he believes marriage to be a business, and accepted proposals would be considered a business agreement, both of his arguments seem perfectly logical. The same degree of certainty one would receive from this business transaction would not be romantic, for business transactions could hardly be considered as such. As for the immorality behind proposals, it is possible that Wilde was referring to the romanticization of claiming and being claimed. During the Victorian era, an engagement, and more particularly an engagement ring, was seen as a cause for celebration and congratulations. When looking at it from Algernon’s (or Wilde’s) perspective, this presumably wonderful occasion loses its charm.
A woman being proclaimed as engaged to be married and/or wearing an engagement ring in this sense, the Victorian sense, is analogous to a piece of property having its “for sale” sign taken down and a “sold” sign put in its place so others would know it, she, is “off the market”. Once again, the system is exposed for its immorality: it teaches men to view women as property or objects that they can claim, while teaching women to view themselves as such and simultaneously take joy in their objectification, and where there is dehumanization, there is no morality.
Though Algernon provides an outlet for Wilde’s more modern views of marriage and romance, the reader is also presented with Lady Bracknell, Algernon’s conservative aunt, who represents Victorian ideals. She frequently inserts her opinion on matters, but her comment on engagements specifically is important: “To speak frankly, I am not in favour of long engagements. They give people the opportunity of finding out each other's character before marriage, which I think is never advisable” (135). Once again, the audience is meant to view this as whimsical, for it is; however, there is more to her words than is immediately apparent. Wilde is using Lady Bracknell’s opinion to point out yet another immoral and commonly held belief about Victorian marriage and romance: love is not what marriage is about. The first part of her line is reminiscent of the idea that a business transaction is a quick one, for if one does not take the deal, another one will soon land on the table, which goes along with Algernon’s (Wilde’s) understanding of Victorian marriage as a business as well. The second part of her line, her objection to giving men and women “the opportunity of finding out each other’s character before marriage” is also reminiscent of the Victorian notion that getting to know one another (dating, flirting, romance in general, etc.) is not necessary in order for an engagement to take place, and thus, neither is love. This argument in particular, the argument that spending one’s life with another person is not something that requires getting to know them and love them, is one of the least moral of all the Victorian arguments and beliefs, if not the absolute least. This argument not only validates Algernon’s (Wilde’s) understanding of Victorian marriage and romance as a dehumanizing, objectifying, business system based solely on trivialities, it reduces the assumingly proud, just, and respected way of Victorian lifea life without love, stunted emotions, and rigid societal rulesto what it really is: arrogant, empty, and intolerant of differences, all traits which Lady Bracknell possesses and thus personifies as the Victorian voice of the play. If people and emotions (love, empathy, understanding) are valued significantly less than trivialities like status, money, material objects, or bigoted conventionalities like those the Victorianera peoples held, these values will lead to a society where freedom of choice is restricted, responsibility of one’s actions is eliminated, and dehumanization becomes an everyday part of life. It will, undoubtedly, be an immoral society.
There is the question of why, then, Wilde would make it so Algernon becomes engaged to Cecily if he (as well as Algernon) seems so opposed to marriage. It is important to note that their engagement is and their marriage will be quite different from a Victorian one. They partake in flirting, kissing, and embracing before they are married, they love each other, and their choice to marry isn’t based on societal rules, but rather their desire to be married. In the end, Wilde makes it clear that it is not marriage itself that he has problems with, but the trivial, societal constraints that it comes with; in the end, he simply wants people to love for love’s sake.
Work Cited
Wilde, Oscar . The Importance of Being Earnest. Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview, 2010. Print.